As always, the standard gimmick of neoliberalism is to pin the blame for the collateral damage of its policies on the relatively powerless people who refuse its self-serving "solutions."
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. It also appears to be a single-purpose account, which goes against the intended spirit the site (curiosity), and therefore is not allowed here.
Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? If you don't want to be banned on HN, you can email us at [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
> The primary concern from day one has been the capacity of our healthcare systems.
This is clearly not the case for the vast swaths of our public health institutions who have supported and eagerly carried out mass terminations of healthcare workers who refuse the Covid vaccines.
There are so many foaming at the mouth morons desperate to “prove” that the whole thing was a sham that it will take extraordinary evidence to convince me anything improper was done.
The solution is not to discredit BMJ but to explain how BMJ article doesn't mean what antivax is insinuating.
I totally understand that when BMJ writes that this clinical research organization did a mess is this trial, someone misreads it as all Pfizer vaccine results are false. But if you say that BMJ is hoax, then we have much stronger reason to distrust healthcare professionals. Do you see the paradox here?
BMJ is expressing concern about Pfizer and regulator's failures with the ultimate aim to fix them and increase the trust by showing that every fault is taken seriously. We cannot sweep unwanted things under the carpet and hope that nothing will happen. Bad actors should be appropriately punished.
I want to second this. Because of how badly the right wants the vaccine to be dangerous/fake/whatever I'm so sensitive to anything negative that I basically brush off articles like this. In my mind I just lump it in with people saying the vaccine will make you impotent.
Probably the wrong way to think about things but that's how my mind works.
It's not credible to assume that this is a one-off instance of incompetence on Facebook's part, it's of a piece with all their other fact checking and moderation policies around this issue.
Fair enough, and if my original response made it seem that I was suggesting that this was a one-off I certainly didn't intend for it too - but I am willing to bet that the frequency of these will continue to increase and from more reputable sources.
> The success of fear-based news relies on presenting dramatic anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, promoting isolated events as trends, depicting categories of people as dangerous and replacing optimism with fatalistic thinking.
